Evidence Hub

Cough monitoring systems in adults with chronic respiratory diseases: a systematic review

Latisha E. Witjaksono, M. Schulte, A. Holland, M. Wijsenbeek, Y. Khor

European Respiratory Review, 2025

4,909 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Background The role of objective cough monitoring systems for assessments in adults with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) is unclear. This systematic review aimed to synthesise current literature on frequency of use and characteristics of these systems. Methods MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were systematically searched to identify relevant literature evaluating cough in adults with CRDs using objective cough monitoring systems. The primary outcomes were utility and characteristics of the systems, with the secondary outcome being usability. Results We identified 54 primary studies (4909 patients, with 3364 having idiopathic chronic cough). Included studies were generally of low risk of bias. Objective monitoring systems identified were VitaloJAK (n=19 studies), Leicester Cough Monitor (LCM, n=18), LEOSound (n=2), PulmoTrack (n=2), Hull Automated Cough Counter (HACC, n=1), LifeShirt (n=1), and unnamed devices (n=11). There was limited assessment against manual counting, with low-to-moderate correlation to patient-reported outcome measures for VitaloJAK (p<0.05), LCM (r=0.43–0.78) and unnamed devices (r=0.38–0.40). Test–retest consistency was evaluated in two studies, showing favourable results. There was at least moderate effect size of longitudinal measurement changes to various treatments for VitaloJAK (nine out of 16), LCM (two out of eight), HACC (n=1), LCM and HACC (n=1), PulmoTrack (n=1) and unnamed devices (n=3). Conclusions Few studies evaluated the agreement of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,909 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free